We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Miranda Custody in Prison – Not Automatic (Howe v. Fields)

A new U.S. Supreme Court decision addressed the issue of whether questioning an inmate inside his institution about facts that occurred outside the institution always requires Miranda warnings because that inmate is by definition “in custody.”


Randall Fields was serving a sentence in a Michigan jail. Fields was escorted by a corrections officer to a conference room where two deputies questioned him about allegations that, before he came to prison, he had engaged in sexual conduct with a minor. Fields had to leave one section of the facility, passing through a locked door to reach the conference room. Fields was questioned between five and seven hours.

At the beginning of the interview, Fields was told he was free to leave and return to his cell. The door was sometimes open, sometimes shut, the deputies were armed but Fields had no handcuffs. At no time was Fields read his Miranda warnings, and according to Fields, he told the deputies on several occasions he no longer wanted to talk, but at no time did he ask to return to his cell. Fields eventually confessed to sexual acts with the minor. At trial, Fields moved to suppress his statement. That motion was denied. Fields was convicted of the sex acts with the minor.


Fields appealed the alleged Miranda violation and prevailed getting his conviction reversed. Fields argued that being isolated for questioning in a custodial setting about incidents that occurred outside the institution is a per se violation of Miranda. The United States Supreme Court reviewed.


The U.S. Supreme Court held that a prisoner is not always in custody for Miranda purposes whenever a prisoner is isolated from the general prison population and questioned about conduct outside the prison.

The Court looked at custody and found that not all restraints on movement are custody. Referencing Maryland v. Shatzer 130 S. Ct. 1213, the Court reiterated that it has never adopted a bright-line rule for determining the applicability of Miranda in prisons. The Court set out three reasons why there can be no bright-line rule:

• First, a person already serving a prison term does not generally involve the shock that very often accompanies an arrest.

• Second, a person in custody is not likely to speak with the thought that they will be released. They are already in custody and know that when the interview is over, they are staying.

• Third, a prisoner knows that the officers questioning him do not have the ability to shorten his sentence. The pressure or fear of speaking really does not exist for the prisoner.

The Court then addressed questioning in private. In some instances, the Court pointed out, in a prison setting questioning in private is a better alternative for the inmate, such as here, talking about child molest. The Court said questioning in private does not necessarily mean Miranda warnings must be given.

Finally, the court failed to see why questioning about facts outside of prison has any distinction from any other questioning.

The Court was clear that under these circumstances, Fields was not in custody for Miranda purposes. The Court summed up:

“Fidelity to the doctrine announced in Miranda requires that it be enforced strictly, but only in those types of situations in which the concerns that powered the decision are implicated. Voluntary confessions made by prisoners should not be suppressed. Voluntary confessions are not merely a proper element in law enforcement, they are an unmitigated good, essential to society’s compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law.”

In this instance, telling the defendant he was free to leave, leaving him unhandcuffed, having the door open, offering him food and water, questioning him in a regular conference room, and not threatening him, all led to the conclusion that his statement was voluntarily made and was not a Miranda violation.


It should be safe to conclude that a county jail inmate who is housed for a significant time period should be considered no different than a prison inmate. Be careful, however, of someone who was just taken into custody. The crux of this ruling is that the inmate who has been incarcerated for a significant period is comfortable in that setting and speaking to the police is not such a jarring experience. Someone new to the custodial environment may be viewed differently.


  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department